See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/52001722

Wood for sound

Article  in  American Journal of Botany · October 2006

DOI: 10.3732/ajb.93.10.1439

CITATIONS READS
74 3,091

1 author:

Ulrike Wegst
Dartmouth College
64 PUBLICATIONS   4,131 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Materials in Musical Instruments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulrike Wegst on 07 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Journal of Botany 93(10): 1439–1448. 2006.

WOOD FOR SOUND1

ULRIKE G. K. WEGST2
Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung, Heisenbergstr. 3, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany; and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Materials Sciences Division, Berkeley, California 94720 USA

The unique mechanical and acoustical properties of wood and its aesthetic appeal still make it the material of choice for musical
instruments and the interior of concert halls. Worldwide, several hundred wood species are available for making wind, string, or
percussion instruments. Over generations, first by trial and error and more recently by scientific approach, the most appropriate
species were found for each instrument and application. Using material property charts on which acoustic properties such as the
speed of sound, the characteristic impedance, the sound radiation coefficient, and the loss coefficient are plotted against one
another for woods. We analyze and explain why spruce is the preferred choice for soundboards, why tropical species are favored
for xylophone bars and woodwind instruments, why violinists still prefer pernambuco over other species as a bow material, and
why hornbeam and birch are used in piano actions.

Key words: wood; acoustical properties; materials selection; musical instruments.

‘‘[I]t appears probable that the progenitors of man, either the
males or females or both sexes, before acquiring the power of
expressing their mutual love in articulate language, endeav-
oured to charm each other with musical notes and rhythm. . .’’,
wrote Darwin in 1871 (p. 880). So far we can only speculate,
when our early ancestors started to perform music, on the role
of music in our biology and evolution (Cross, 2001), and when
the first musical instruments were made and from which
materials. What we know for certain is that about 35 000 years
ago, when the oldest surviving sculptures and cave paintings
were created, flutes were played in the Geißenklösterle Cave in
the southwestern part of Germany (Conard, 2004). The flutes
heard then are universally accepted as the oldest musical
instruments found so far. Of the three flutes found in the
Geißenklösterle Cave, two are made of hollow swan wing
bones, and the third of solid mammoth ivory that was first
carefully separated into halves for hollowing, then glued
together along a perfectly prepared, air-tight seam (Conard,
2004). All three flutes show not only early artistry in their
manufacture, but experiments by Seeberger (2003) on modern
reproductions of these flutes conclusively demonstrate that they
are intricate musical instruments with which complex and
aesthetically pleasing music can be produced.
The oldest surviving examples of musical instruments are
those made from bone and ivory—probably not because they
were the preferred material for flutes, but rather because purely
organic materials decay much more quickly than their
mineralized counterparts. Flutes of a similar design and other
musical instruments were likely made from leaves, grasses,
wood or fruits at the same time or even earlier than these oldest
surviving ones. Plants, as do bird wing bones, have shapes
suitable for musical instrument making, and additionally,
1
Manuscript received 8 May 2006; revision accepted 17 July 2006.
The author thanks J. Woodhouse and C. Y. Barlow, Cambridge
University Engineering Department; R. Pitteroff, Bosch, Stuttgart; W.
Mauer, Louis Renner GmbH & Co. KG; A. P. Tomsia, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory; and E. Arzt, MPI für Metallforschung, Stuttgart for
very stimulating and educational discussions; and two anonymous
reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. This paper was written
during the author’s stay at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
whose hospitality and support are gratefully acknowledged.
2
E-mail: wegst@mf.mpg.de
1439
plants have mechanical properties that would have made it
even easier for our ancestors to shape them with relatively
simple stone, bone, or antler tools.
The earliest surviving flutes were found in Europe.
However, finds of similar and other musical instruments on
all continents show that sound and rhythm have been an
intricate part of human nature, independent of region and
culture.
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
Over the millennia since the swan-bone and mammoth-ivory
flutes, the range and color of sounds that can be produced by
humans have increased immensely. The development of new
and improved musical instruments has played an important part
in this, and for many of them, the human voice has been the
benchmark. Today, musicologists group the vast number and
kinds of past and current musical instruments into five families
based on a system devised by von Hornbostel and Sachs
(1914). The initial four classes were (1) idiophones—instru-
ments that make sound primarily by vibrating themselves,
without the use of membranes or strings (e.g., xylophones); (2)
membranophones—instruments that use a stretched membrane
to create the sound e.g., drums); (3) chordophones—instru-
ments that rely on a stretched string (e.g., violins, guitars,
pianos); and (4) aerophones—instruments that rely on
a vibrating air column for sound creation (e.g., flutes, clarinets
and didgeridoos). More recently, a fifth class has been added to
the Sachs–Hornbostel system: (5) electrophones—instruments
that produce sound by electronic means (e.g., keyboard
synthesizers).
Even though the range and sophistication of musical
instruments has increased significantly, particularly during the
last four centuries or so, the range of materials from which the
instruments of all these classes are manufactured has changed
remarkably little. Whenever music is made by hand, whatever
the location and culture, from folk to classical, from jazz to rock
and pop, the vital parts in most musical instruments are still
made from natural materials and primarily from wood, despite
the arrival of sophisticated alloys, polymers, and composites.
There are a number of good reasons why this is so, as will be
illustrated. We begin with a brief description of the composition
1440 A MERICAN J OURNAL OF B OTANY [Vol. 93

and structure of wood that give it its exceptional mechanical and

acoustical properties.

WOOD AS AN ENGINEERING MATERIAL

The unique and desirable spectrum of physical and

mechanical properties of wood that so far can only in
exceptional cases truly be matched by manmade materials,
make it the material of choice for a multitude of applications
ranging from construction to sports equipment and musical
instruments even today. Wood is advantageous in its
comparative abundance and in being relatively easy to shape
with simple tools. One feature that sets wood apart from most
manmade materials is that it is an orthotropic material, meaning
that it has unique and independent mechanical properties in the
directions of three mutually perpendicular axes: longitudinal,
radial, and tangential. The longitudinal axis (L) is defined as
parallel to the fiber (grain), thus along the length of a tree trunk;
the radial axis (R) is perpendicular to the growth rings; and the
tangential axis (T) is perpendicular to the grain but tangent to
the growth rings. This orthotropy is due to the cellular structure
of wood. Wood is primarily composed of hollow, slender,
spindle-like cells, that are arranged parallel to each other along Fig. 1. A material property chart for woods, plotting Young’s
the trunk of a tree. The microscopic properties of the individual modulus, E, against density, q, for woods parallel to the grain. It
cells such as their composition and structure, their physical and illustrates that Young’s modulus and density are almost linearly correlated.
mechanical properties, and their shape and connectivity Figure created using the Natural Materials Selector (Wegst, 2004).
determine the overall performance of wood.
Wood is a hierarchically structured composite. The cell walls perpendicular to the grain of this orthotropic material are
consist of cellulose microfibrils embedded in a lignin and among these and have been shown to be important for musical
hemicellulose matrix in which minor amounts (5–10%) of plate vibration. Lacking complete sets of measurements of
extraneous extractives (e.g., oils) are contained (Wood these moduli for woods used in musical instruments, we
Handbook, 1999; Dinwoodie, 2000). Variations in the volume concentrate on the Young’s modulus parallel to the grain
and chemistry of these ingredients, combined with differences because it has been determined for a large number of wood
in the amount and distribution of porosity, determine the species and because the Young’s modulus, together with the
structure and thus the density and mechanical properties of wood’s density, determines most acoustical properties of
a wood. While the properties of a single wood species are a material. Additionally, the side hardness is important
constant within limits, the range of properties among species
whenever wood carries contact or impact loads, as is the case
can be large. Worldwide, the density of wood ranges from
in xylophones, for example. For clear, straight-grained soft-
about 100 kg/m3 for balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) to about
woods and hardwoods, the Young’s modulus parallel to the
1400 kg/m3 for lignum vitae (Guaicum officinale) and
snakewood (Brosimum guianense) (Wagenführ and Schreiber, grain and side hardness may be estimated from the density, q,
1989), a value close to that of carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers in kg/m3 according to the correlations in Table 1 (Wood
(CFRP) (Fig. 1). However, even in Europe, which has a small Handbook, 1999). Figure 1, a plot of Young’s modulus parallel
diversity of tree species due to a relatively recent ice age, the to the grain vs. wood density, illustrates the modulus–density
density ranges from about 400 kg/m3 for willow (Salix alba) to correlation; the diagonal line has a slope of 1.
about 800 kg/m3 for hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and 950 kg/ Another important feature peculiar to wood and important
m3 for boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) (Sell, 1989). From for musical instruments is that it reacts and adapts to the
these, our ancestors found, over the generations and by trial environmental conditions to which it is exposed, particularly
and error, the best wood species available for a given function. that it exchanges moisture with air. Material properties that are
As today, their choices were not made on purely technical and critical for the acoustical performance of a wood such as
mechanical grounds, such as the wood’s decay resistance and density, Young’s modulus, damping, and shrinkage are highly
dimensional stability and the ease with which it could be dependent upon the wood’s moisture content. Thus, important
shaped and joined. Very important always were additional criteria during the material selection process are also how much
ones, such as the wood’s appearance—its texture, grain pattern, and how quickly a wood exchanges moisture with the
and color. We will see later that these last, seemingly ‘‘soft’’
criteria are often the critical ones that determine whether TABLE 1. Correlations of Young’s modulus, hardness and density (q) in
a material will be accepted or not in cases of material kg/m3 for soft and hardwoods.
substitution, even when the technical criteria are clearly met.
Property correlations Softwoods Hardwoods

Physical and mechanical properties of wood—Many

Young’s modulus [GPa] 56.3
q0.84 121.1
q0.7
physical and mechanical properties of wood are correlated Side hardness [N] 0.229
q1.5 6.48
103
q2.09
with density. The Young’s and shear moduli parallel and
October 2006] W EGST —W OOD
environment and how the moisture affects its dimensional
stability and mechanical properties. In general, the speed of
moisture sorption decreases with increasing density and
content of extractives (Sell, 1989). The rate and amount of
water uptake along with the dimensional stability of wood can
further be controlled through treatments with waxes or oils.
Acoustical properties of wood—The acoustical properties of
wood, such as the volume, quality, and color of the sound of
xylophone bars and soundboards are determined by the
mechanical properties of the material from which they are
made because the sound is produced by vibrations of the
material itself. The properties on which the acoustical
performance of a material depends are primarily its density,
Young’s modulus, and loss coefficient. They determine the
speed of sound in a material, the eigenfrequencies of a wooden
bar, and the intensity of the radiated sound.
The most important acoustical properties for selecting
materials for sound applications, such as musical instruments
and building interiors, are the speed of sound within the
material, the characteristic impedance, the sound radiation
coefficient, and the loss coefficient:
 The speed, c, with which sound travels through a material, is
defined as the root of the material’s Young’s modulus, E,
divided by the material’s density, q:
sffiffiffi
E either z1 ,, z2 or z2 ,, z1 (Fletcher and Rossing, 1991).
c¼ : ð1Þ
q
 Incidentally, this ratio, which describes the speed of
longitudinal waves in a material, also characterizes the
transverse vibrational frequencies of a bar.
 The impedance, z, of a material, is defined as the product of
the material’s speed of sound, c, and its density, q:
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
z ¼ cq ¼ Eq : ð2Þ
 The sound radiation coefficient, R, of a material, is defined as
the ratio of the material’s speed of sound, c, to its density, q:
sffiffiffiffiffi
c E
R¼ ¼ ð3Þ
q q3
 The loss coefficient, g, measures the degree to which
a material dissipates vibrational energy by internal friction.
Other measures of damping include the quality factor, Q, the
logarithmic decrement, d, and the loss angle, w. For
excitation near resonance and small damping, these quanti-
ties are related as (Newland, 1989):
1 d
g¼ ¼ ¼ tanw : ð4Þ
Q p
Speed of sound—As we saw in Eq. 1, the speed of sound is
directly related to the modulus of elasticity and density. It is
roughly independent of wood species, but varies with grain
direction. The transverse Young’s modulus of wood is only
between 1/20 to 1/10 of the longitudinal; consequently, the
speed of sound across the grain is only c. 20 to 30% that of the
FOR SOUND 1441
longitudinal value. Generally, the speed of sound in wood
decreases with an increase in temperature or moisture content
and proportionally to the influence of these variables on
Young’s modulus and density. It decreases slightly with
increasing frequency and amplitude of vibration (Wood
Handbook, 1999).
Characteristic impedance—Like the speed of sound, the
characteristic impedance is directly related to the modulus of
elasticity and density of a material. This quantity is important
when vibratory energy is transmitted from one medium with
impedance z1 to another with impedance z2. The first medium
could be a string and the second the soundboard of a musical
instrument. The ratio of the reflected sound intensity, Ir, to the
incident intensity, I0, can be expressed as a function of the
impedances of the two media:
 
Ir z2  z1 2
¼ : ð5Þ
I0 z2 þ z1
And the ratio of the transmitted sound intensity, It, to the
incident intensity is
It 4z2 z1
¼ : ð6Þ
I0 ðz2 þ z1 Þ2
From these equations, we see that the transmitted intensity goes
to zero if there is a large mismatch between z1 and z2, thus
The soundboard’s impedance is proportional not only to the
characteristic impedance of the material from which it is made,
but also to the square of the soundboards thickness. As a result,
soundboards with considerable thickness, such as that in
pianos, for example, have an impedance significantly larger
than that of the strings. To achieve a high sound quality, the
impedances of the strings and the soundboard must thus be
controlled very carefully. This is not a trivial undertaking,
because two conflicting requirements must be met: sufficient
vibratory energy must be transmitted from the string to the
soundboard to make the strings vibrate audibly, while the
energy should not be transmitted too readily or too rapidly,
causing the vibrations of the string to die down quickly and
their sound to resemble that of a thud (Benade, 1990).
Sound radiation coefficient—The sound radiation coefficient
describes how much the vibration of a body is damped due to
sound radiation. Particularly in the case of idiophones, such as
xylophones and soundboards, a large sound radiation co-
efficient of the material is desirable if we wish to produce
a loud sound. To maximize loudness, we need to maximize the
amplitude of the vibrational response of the soundboard for
a given force, a quantity that is described by the frequency
response function (Barlow, 1997). According to Skudrzyk’s
(1980) mean value theorem, the mean value of the amplitude is
equal to the driving-point admittance, which for an infinite
isotropic plate is
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 3ð1  m2 Þ
Y¼ 2 ; ð7Þ
4h Eq
where h is the thickness of the soundboard or the bar and m is
the Poisson’s ratio of the material from which it is made.
Assuming that we do not wish to change the timbre of the
1442 A MERICAN J OURNAL
instrument, we need to ensure that the modal density of the
soundboard has the correct value (Manning, 1997). For an
isotropic plate, the modal density (in frequency space) is
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A q
nðxÞ ¼ 3ð1  m2 Þ ; ð8Þ
h E
where A is the area of the soundboard. Rearranging Eq. 8 and
substituting it for h in Eq. 7 yields an expression that describes
how the mean amplitude for a soundboard of a given area and
the modal density depend on the soundboard’s material
properties:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
nðxÞ E 1 these instruments and analyze why certain species are
Y¼ : ð9Þ
4A2 q3 3ð1  m2 Þ
Thus, if we wish to maximize the average amplitude or the
average loudness of a violin for a given modal density and
prescribed soundboard dimensions, assuming the term in
parentheses equals 1, we need to maximize the combination
of materials properties which was earlier defined as the sound
radiation coefficient, R:
sffiffiffiffiffi
E Rujinirun et al. (2005) and Bucur (2006).
R¼ : ð10Þ
q3
If we wish to maximize the peak response of a soundboard or
a bar, rather than the average response, we need to maximize
the ratio of the sound radiation coefficient to the loss
coefficient, g (Barlow, 1997).
Incidentally, the quantity that we need to maximize if
maximum stiffness per unit weight is sought is the same as that
represented by R. In soundboard design, this means that the one
that radiates the loudest sound also is the stiffest per unit mass,
thereby ensuring that the thin top plates of violins, which
typically are only 2–3 mm thick, can support the 70 to 90 N (c.
7 to 9 kg) load of the strings with minimal deflection.
Loss coefficient—When a solid material vibrates, it is
strained and some of its mechanical energy is dissipated as
heat by internal friction. The mechanism by which this occurs
in wood is complex and depends on the temperature and
moisture content within a sample and on the type and amount
of extractives characteristic for the wood species. The value of
the loss coefficient ranges from about 0.1 for hot, moist wood
to about 0.002 for air-dry wood at room temperature. Unlike
the three acoustical properties described earlier, the loss
coefficient, which quantifies the damping of vibration due to
internal friction, is independent of density and Young’s
modulus, as Fig. 4 illustrates.
Pitch and timbre of sound—The loudness or intensity of
a sound depends on the square of the amplitude of the
vibration, as described earlier. The pitch of sound of a musical
instrument is determined by the spectrum of frequencies it
radiates and transmits into the air. Each body has its own
particular set of eigenfrequencies defined by the size of the
vibrating body, the material from which it is made, and in the
case of strings, on its tension. The timbre and quality of the
sound that a vibrating body produces is due to the presence of
eigenfrequencies, also termed overtones or upper partials, and
their relative strengths. Which overtones of a sounding body
are excited depends on what causes the body’s vibrations:
OF B OTANY [Vol. 93
whether it is hit by a soft or a hard mallet and whether the
vibration is caused by a plucked or a bowed string. The
harmonics also depend on the shape of the body and on the
material from which the body is made, as is explained next.
MATERIAL SELECTION FOR MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
When we plot the various physical and mechanical
properties and acoustical quantities described earlier against
one another for the woods commonly used for different types
of instruments, we can illustrate the design requirements for
especially suited for particular sound applications and therefore
traditionally chosen by musical instrument makers. The scales
of the charts are logarithmic to accommodate a large range of
materials and to be able to represent the acoustical criteria with
straight lines. The materials are represented as bubbles and
grouped by colors, which indicate the traditional use for
a material. Data sources for information on materials and their
properties are Haines (1979), Richter (1988), Finscher (1994),
Yano et al. (1997), Sadie and Tyrell (2001), Oberhoff (2003),
Figure 1 shows Young’s modulus, E, plotted against density,
q, for woods parallel to the grain. From the chart, we read that
soundboards are made from low density woods, which have
a relatively high Young’s modulus, that woods for wind
instruments and xylophone bars have a high density, and that
woods for violin bows have both an exceptionally high density
and a high Young’s modulus. The reasons for these choices are
described in detail later.
Figure 2 shows the speed of sound, c, plotted against
density, q, allowing two additional acoustical properties to be
read from this chart. Lines with slope 1 represent the ratio c/q,
the sound radiation coefficient, R. Lines with slope 1
represent the product of the two, cq, the characteristic
impedance, z. All materials on an individual line with a slope
of 1, or 1, have the same value for this property, thus they
radiate the same amount of sound, or have the same
impedance, respectively. Materials above a line have a higher
value for the respective property than those below. Woods for
soundboards stand out. They have both an exceptionally high
speed of sound and a remarkably high sound radiation
coefficient.
Figure 3 shows the sound radiation coefficient, R, plotted
against the loss coefficient, g. Lines with slope 1 represent the
ratio of the two, the peak response of a sounding body, rather
than its average response represented by R. All materials on an
individual line have the same value for this property. Materials
above a line produce a louder peak response than those below.
The chart reveals that woods for soundboards have both a high
average and a high peak response and that soundboards,
xylophone bars, and violin bows all have an exceptionally low
loss coefficient.
Figure 4 shows the Young’s modulus plotted against the loss
coefficient, g, illustrating that these properties are not at all
correlated. The chart also shows that woods for violin bows are
unique in their combination of an exceptionally high Young’s
modulus with a very low loss coefficient.
In the next sections, these four material property charts are
used to explore which of the depicted properties dominate the
material choice and quality of sound produced by woodwind
October 2006] W EGST —W OOD
instruments, xylophone bars, soundboards, piano actions, and
violin bows.
Woods for wind instruments (aerophones)—Wind instru-
ments made from wood are, for example, the recorder, the
flute, the oboe, the clarinet and the bassoon. We concentrate on
these, since the principle of sound production applies to all
other instruments which, like these, use an air column as
a resonating body to produce and radiate the sound. The sound
characteristics of these instruments that allow us to distinguish
one from the other are due to the mode of air column excitation
(whether by blowing over the column for the flute or through
a single reed for the clarinet or a double reed for the oboe), on
the shape of the air column (whether it is cylindrical or
conical), on the length of the air column (controlled by opening
and closing the finger holes on the instrument), and very
importantly, on the exact shape and design of the finger holes
(Benade, 1990; Fletcher and Rossing, 1991).
Traditionally, the woods from which these instruments are
made are dense, have a fine structure, and a high dimensional
stability, particularly when exposed to high levels of moisture.
Before the arrival of tropical wood species in Europe, boxwood
(Buxus sempervirens) and fruit woods such as pear (Pyrus
communis) and plum (Prunus domestica), and in exceptional
cases the material of the oldest surviving flute, ivory, were
used. Since the arrival of the denser tropical species, African
blackwood or grenadill (Dalbergia melanoxylon), Brazilian
rosewood (Dalbergia nigra), and Macassar ebony (Dyospyros
celebica) have been favored for oboe and clarinet, while the
large bassoon has always been and still is made of maple (Acer
platanoides) (Table 2).
Why were these woods chosen? Their mechanical properties
differ vastly, by almost a factor of two between the least and
the most dense. The reason for their use is their structure. All
these woods can be turned and drilled with great accuracy, and
they are sufficiently dimensionally stable under the influence of
moisture. These characteristics are critical because for these
instruments, the material determines the sound quality of the
instrument not by vibrating itself—the acoustic pressure of the
standing wave in the air column is by far too weak to excite and
couple to vibrations of the thick wooden tube of wooden
instruments to produce audible vibrations—but the sound
quality is determined by the interaction of the material with the
enclosed column of vibrating air.
The tube material influences the sound of the instrument and
its playability significantly and mainly by two mechanisms: by
vibrational damping due to air friction at the tube walls and by
turbulence in the vibrating air at the edges (Benade, 1990).
Vibrational damping is lower in tubes with a smooth finish.
Turbulences, which also dampen the vibration and affects the
tonal quality of an instrument, are reduced when the edges can
be cut precisely and finished slightly rounded as for finger
holes, for example. The best wood for a wind instrument thus
has a high density and a fine grain to obtain an optimal finish of
the tube walls and finger holes. Because the breath of the
musician introduces significant amounts of water into the air
column, the material should further absorb a little moisture
since water droplets on the tube wall spoil the sound. At the
same time, the material should be dimensionally stable when
exposed to moisture, so that the instrument remains tuned over
a significant amount of time. All the woods named earlier have
these qualities to a larger extent than others. Their resistance to
FOR SOUND 1443
moisture is frequently further improved by oiling or by
impregnating with paraffin.
Because African blackwood is an endangered species, plain
and wood-filled polymers have recently been introduced as
a substitute material for the manufacture of clarinets. Makers
and players tend to claim that they can hear differences in
sound quality between instruments made from different woods
and alternative materials. Such differences can be due to
differences in surface and bore properties of the instrument or
due to the wall material’s thermal properties, because sound
waves involve temperature fluctuations, which, due to the
thermal inertia in the walls, produce a damping effect.
Appropriate material selection and the optimization of the
manufacturing process should make it possible, however, to
manufacture polymer instruments that can produce a sound
similar in quality and timbre to that of wooden ones. Current
reservations of musicians toward polymers use for top quality
instruments might have an additional, more subtle reason: the
‘‘feel’’ towards an instrument made from synthetic ‘‘plastics’’ as
opposed to the natural material wood.
Woods for xylophones (idiophones)—The xylophone
consists of wooden bars mounted horizontally and supported
by a soft material at the two nodal points of its lowest
eigenfrequency. The fundamental frequency of vibration of an
individual xylophone bar is determined by its length. Bars of
identical length and shape have vibrational frequencies that
scale with the speed of sound from the chosen material. An
arch is cut into the underside of xylophone bars for two
reasons: to reduce the bar length required for low pitches and to
tune the overtones (Fletcher and Rossing, 1991).
Xylophone bars are impulsively excited instruments. The
energy that causes the bar to vibrate is transferred to it in a time
span that is very short in comparison to the decay time of the
bar’s vibration. As a result, the choice of the mallet used to
excite the bar has an enormous effect on the color and quality
of the sound produced (in a way similar to the quality of the felt
on the hammers in a piano). A hard-headed mallet produces
a bright and penetrating sound, while a softer mallet produces
a more mellow sound that is often preferred for the lower notes.
This effect is due to the frequencies excited on impact. The
harder mallet has a shorter contact time upon impact and
excites a spectrum rich in overtones characteristic for a given
material, while the softer excites only the harmonically tuned
lower partials and dampens the higher partials due to its longer
contact time.
If a significant loudness and reverberation time of an
impulsively excited instrument is to be achieved, the best
materials are those that radiate sound well. Additionally, bars
with a low loss coefficient will result in a brighter sound
because the higher partials are less damped than in a material
with a high loss coefficient (Richter, 1988; Bork, 1995).
Figures 3 and 4 show that xylophone bar woods (Table 3)
have a low loss coefficient and high value of peak sound
radiation, but not of the average sound radiation coefficient,
and that woods for soundboards (Table 4) have much higher
values for both. What are the consequences of these differences
and why are xylophone bars not made from soundboard
woods? For two reasons: the first is that soundboard woods
have a very low density (Fig. 1), and as a result a low side
hardness (Table 1). Low-density species hit by a mallet would
dent easily or even split, and the bars’ tuning and damping
properties would suffer as a result. Thus we seek a wood with
1444 A MERICAN J OURNAL OF B OTANY [Vol. 93

Fig. 2. A material property chart for woods, plotting the speed of
sound, c, against density, q, allowing two additional acoustical properties
to be read from this chart. Lines of slope 1 represent the sound radiation
coefficient, R ¼ c/q. Lines of slope 1 represent the product of the two, the
characteristic impedance, z ¼ cq. Figure created using the Natural
Materials Selector (Wegst, 2004).
a high side hardness, a design requirement best met by high-
density tropical species (Holz, 1996). The second reason is also
related to density: the sound of xylophone bars should decay
sufficiently slowly, a criterion of less importance in a contin-
uously excited string instrument, for example. Figure 2 shows
Fig. 4. A material property chart for woods, plotting Young’s modulus
against the loss coefficient, g, revealing that these two properties are not at
all correlated. Figure created using the Natural Materials Selector (Wegst,
2004).
that, due to their higher density, woods for xylophone bars are
much less damped by sound radiation than soundboard woods,
resulting in slower sound decay. Additionally, the higher
impedance characteristic of these woods (Fig. 2) also means
that they lose less energy through the supports because the
impedance mismatch is greater. Consequently, tropical species
with high density, high peak response, and low loss coefficient
such as Amazon rosewood (Dalbergia spruceana), Honduras
rosewood (D. stevensonii), African padauk (Pterocarpus

TABLE 2. Woods traditionally used for wind instruments.

Common name Taxon

Norway maple Acer platanoides

Sycamore (curly) maple Acer pseudoplatanus
Ma-had Artocarpus lakoocha
Cocuswood Brya ebenus
European boxwood Buxus sempervirens
Castella boxwood, castelo Calycophyllum multiflorum
West Indian boxwood, zapatero Casearia praecox
Brazilian kingwood Dalbergia cearensis
Bahia rosewood Dalbergia decipularis
Indian rosewood Dalbergia latifolia
African blackwood, grenadill Dalbergia melanoxylon
Brazilian rosewood Dalbergia nigra
Ching-chan Dalbergia oliveri
Brazilian tulipwood Dalbergia variabilis
Cocobolo Dalbergia retusa
Macassar ebony Dyospyros celebica
Bubinga Guibourtia tessmannii
Red chacate Guibourtia schliebenii
Pear Pyrus communis
Fig. 3. A material property chart for woods, plotting the sound Plum Prunus domestica
radiation coefficient, R, against the loss coefficient, g. Lines of slope 1 Olive Olea europea
represent the ratio of the two, R/g, the peak response of a sounding body. Indian kamba Stephegyne parviflora
Figure created using the Natural Materials Selector (Wegst, 2004).
October 2006] W EGST —W OOD
TABLE 3. Woods traditionally used for xylophone bars.
Common name Taxon
Granadillo Dalbergia cubilquitzensis
Amazon rosewood Dalbergia spruceana
Honduras rosewood Dalbergia stevensonii
Merbau Intsia bijuga
Wenge Millettia laurentii
African padauk Pterocarpus soyauxii
Cristobal Platymiscium pinnatum
Pau rosa Swartzia fistuloides
soyauxii), Ching-Chan (D. oliveri) and Ma-Had (Artocarpus
lakoocha) perform well by these criteria.
Woods for soundboards (chordophones)—The sound that
a single plucked or bowed string produces is barely audible
because one string sets only a small volume of air into motion.
To produce sounds with satisfactory volume for our ears, the
string must be coupled to a resonator, which has a better
coupling to air to transmit the vibratory energy of the string and
radiate the sound. In the violin family, the string is coupled via
the bridge to the top plate of the instrument, the soundboard,
which usually is a piece of softwood with the grain running
parallel to the strings. The bridge transmits the vibrations of the
string to the soundboard, which is connected to the back plate
by the sound post and the ribs. The back plate is part of the
vibrating structure and as such also contributes to radiating the
sound. The shape and material of the body strongly influence
the sound quality and the way in which it is radiated into the
room. The f-holes in the top-plate, for example, have not only
a direct influence on the vibrations of this soundboard, but also
provide a passageway through which the air enclosed in the
instrument’s body communicates its oscillations to the outside.
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate this. Soundboard-quality woods are
not only the best sound radiators of all, but they also have a low
characteristic impedance. A low impedance is beneficial for
sound transmission into the air. The impedance of spruce
(Picea sp.) is very similar to that of maple, the traditional
material for the bridge, back plate, and ribs. Maple also radiates
sound well; its characteristic impedance is sufficiently high to
act as a reflector for the air oscillations within the corpus of the
instrument and to help radiate them into the room through the f-
holes in the top plate (Table 4).
A closer look not only at the holes in the top plates of string
instruments, but also at their overall shape reveals a feature
common to almost all wooden musical instruments: both the
instrument itself and the holes cut into it are either round or
composed of arcs. Such instrument design is not only
aesthetically pleasing, but it is also prescribed by the
orthotropic nature of wood. The softwoods commonly used
for soundboards, such as spruce, very readily split parallel to
the grain, particularly when they have the shape of a plate and
a modest thickness of 2–3 mm, as is typical for violin and
guitar soundboards. By cutting curves and circles, the
instrument maker avoids creating the stress concentrations
associated with sharp corners.
Common beliefs are that regular playing and aging of wood
improve the acoustical properties of musical instruments, that
instruments that are exhibited in museums rather than played
lose their quality, that ‘‘old fiddles sound sweeter,’’ and that
FOR SOUND 1445
TABLE 4. Woods traditionally used for soundboards, sides, and backs.
Common name Taxon
Silver fir Abies alba
King William pine Athrotaxis selaginoides
Norway spruce Picea abies ¼ P. excelsis
Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis
Pine Pinus sylvestris
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii
Woods traditionally used for sides and backs of violins
Silver maple Acer saccharinum
Sycamore (curly) maple Acer pseudoplatanus
new ones need to be ‘‘played-in.’’ Humidity and creep are
believed to play an important role in this. Hunt and Balsan
(1996) show experimentally that regular playing at intermedi-
ate or high humidities leads to an increase in stiffness and
a decrease in loss coefficient. Beavitt (1996) presents
experimental evidence to support his hypothesis that creep
facilitated by humidity cycling results in changes in the
overtone spectrum of the instrument, making it sound more
sonorous and resonant. Segerman (1996, 2001) claims that
creep in newly strung instruments affects the sound as it
absorbs sound vibrations and that vibrations accelerate creep
and thus help a newly strung instrument to settle in faster.
Other research shows that the gradual decomposition and loss
of hemicellulose with time lowers a wood’s density without
affecting its Young’s modulus (Bucur, 2006). This avenue is
being pursued further in current research to ‘‘age’’ soundboard
wood by infecting it with a carefully selected fungus to lower
the density at a constant Young’s modulus and thereby
improving the sound radiation coefficient and quality of the
soundboards (Zierl, 2005).
Further research on the ‘‘playing-in’’ and ageing of musical
instruments is required to explain conclusively the various
observed phenomena in terms of the chemical, structural, and
mechanical properties of wood and the environment to which it
is exposed.
Woods for piano actions—So far we have considered the
transmission of vibratory energy from the string to our ear via
a soundboard. This leaves questions about how strings are
excited and which role wood plays here. To produce sounds on
a piano, the pianist presses down a key, which by a complicated
mechanism, the piano action, sets a hammer in motion. The
hammer strikes the string at a suitably chosen point and thereby
excites it to vibrate. Over their lifetime, the various piano
action parts, which consist of hundreds of small levers, are
moved millions of times. The best materials for such an
application are those that provide a reliable structure by having
a high wear resistance in the moving parts, a long fatigue life,
a high toughness to resist repetitive impact loading and, most
importantly, that are dimensionally stable and shapable with
great precision. For over 300 years, woods such as hornbeam
(Carpinus betulus), beech (Fagus sylvatica) and maple (Acer
platanoides) have been the prime choice for these applications
because they fulfill all these requirements (Table 5).
However, not only mechanical requirements have to be
fulfilled by the components of piano actions; some components
are also chosen for their acoustical properties as described by
Holz (2000). The hammershank, a stick 120 mm in length and
c. 5.5 mm in diameter, holds the felt-covered hammer and is
1446 A MERICAN J OURNAL
TABLE 5. Woods traditionally used for piano actions.
Common name Taxon
Norway maple Acer platanoides
Silver birch Betula pendula
Hornbeam Carpinus betulus
Beech Fagus sylvatica
traditionally made from birch (Betula pendula). First, its
elasticity is tested by hand bending. Only those which return to
their original shape are chosen, and these are then dropped onto
a hard surface to excite their eigenfrequencies. Variations in
density and modulus between sticks lead to variations in the
eigenfrequencies by as much as a fifth for these fixed
dimensions. The sticks are grouped as ‘‘dark,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ or
‘‘bright,’’ depending on the sound produced and used in
respective sections in the piano. Birch with its higher speed of
sound is often preferred over hornbeam and maple for this
application. How does the material for the hammershanks
affect the sound quality of the piano, and why is a high speed
of sound preferred, particularly for hammershanks in the
descant registers of a piano? Might the higher speed of sound
be an indicator of stiffness, and might the stiffness of the
hammershank influence the contact time of the hammer and
with it the sound produced? Lacking rigorous analysis, we can
only speculate. So far, the only evidence in support of the
hypothesis that hammershank ‘‘tuning’’ improves the sound
quality of a piano is the long, continuing, and sometimes costly
tradition of labor-intensive materials selection by an acoustic
criterion.
Woods for violin bows—String instruments like the violin
have the ability to produce steady tones when a bow is used to
excite the string’s vibrations. Originally, bows for string
instruments had the same shape as musical bows and resembled
those used for archery. The bow as we know it today is thought
to have been developed by the French bow-maker François
Tourte in the second half of the 18th century. He changed the
shape of the bow from a concave to a convex curvature and is
additionally thought to have been the first to recognize the
qualities of the still preferred material for bows, the tropical
wood pernambuco (Guilandia echinata, syn. Caesalpinia
echinata), a wood that first reached Europe as a dyewood for
red cloth in the 16th century (Table 6).
Mechanically speaking, the wooden bow stick acts as a leaf
spring. It tightens the horse hair sufficiently so that by pulling it
across a string the player can excite and control its transverse
oscillations (Pitteroff, 1995; Wegst, 1996; Wegst and Ashby,
1996; Oberhoff, 2003). This interaction of string and bow is
highly complex and still not fully understood. Neither are the
complete requirements for the bow stick material. Generally,
the quality of a bow is judged by the ease with which a top-
TABLE 6. Woods traditionally used for bows for stringed instruments.
Common name Taxon
Snakewood Brosimum guianense
Pernambuco Guilandia echinata
Massaranduba Manilkara elata
OF B OTANY [Vol. 93
quality sound can be achieved on a violin by an experienced
violinist. Factors influencing the playability of a bow are partly
structural (shape, point of balance) and partly material
dependent (mass, stiffness, mechanical damping) (Woodhouse,
1993a, b).
Particularly, the damping performance of the bow material is
thought critical for the bows playability. Additionally, the
damping properties of the bow stick are thought to have
a significant effect on the violin’s sound. Of great mechanical
importance is the bow’s bending stiffness, which for a given
geometry, depends on the Young’s modulus of the bow stick
material. Stiffness is important for three reasons. First, if a bow
is too flexible, the desired horse-hair tension is reached only
when the bow is almost straight. Second, if the spring stiffness
of the stick-hair system is low, the control of the bow dynamics
is reduced—this is particularly important for techniques in
which the bow leaves the string, such as spiccato. And third,
a low lateral stiffness leads to reduced bow control in this
direction. Finally, the mass of the bow affects the bow’s
playability because it is considered advantageous if the lowest
bow forces can be achieved by the self-weight of the bow and
a small additional load applied by the player.
Pernambuco fulfills all these requirements. It has the desired
density, bending stiffness, and damping behavior for the
current violin bow design. However, like African blackwood,
the most revered wood for clarinets, this tropical wood
currently faces a high risk of extinction in the wild, which
raises the question whether alternative materials for violin
bows exist.
Figures 1 and 4 show that pernambuco is a wood with an
exceptionally high Young’s modulus for its density and
a remarkably low loss coefficient, which is thought to be due
to an exceptionally high amount of extractives (Matsunaga et
al., 1996, 2000). Figure 4 also shows that alternative materials
exist, which, on purely mechanical grounds, could make as
good violin bows as pernambuco. Examples are the wood
Swartzia (Swartzia spp.) and CFRP (violin-bow quality), to
name but two. In the case of alternative woods, however,
further experimentation is required to explore whether they
fulfill the other important design requirements, namely, that
they are straight and fine-grained, free from defects such as
knots and splits, and whether they can be worked easily,
whether they can be bent over heat, and whether they retain
their curvature well. Trials by bow makers and musicians are
needed for a thorough evaluation of alternative materials.
Other critical criteria are again those of ‘‘feel’’ and
appearance. The alternative wood or material has to be
acceptable to the musical community. As in the case of
woodwind instruments, aesthetics plays an important role: new
materials for musical instruments are generally not only chosen
for mechanico-acoustical considerations, but also for optical
ones. A wood which has the wrong look, color or feel may be
rejected purely for these reasons—even if their performance
was similar or even superior to other materials. CFRP initially
suffered from such reservations and the fact that it is a synthetic
material. Now it is more and more accepted by musicians,
particularly for pieces that require a more forceful style of play.
The CFRP bow’s great advantage is that it is less prone to
fracture than an old French pernambuco bow and that it can be
replaced.
Wood and acoustics in buildings—Not only musical
instruments produce sounds and noises. Buildings also do.
October 2006] W EGST —W OOD
Everyone has heard the sounds of wooden floors and stairs that
act as soundboards and amplify rather than dampen the sound
of walking. To a building’s inhabitants, they can be both
a severe irritant or a charming reminder of the building’s
history. However, most often they are undesirable, unless they
are part of a clever alarm system. Probably the best-known
example of a floor deliberately designed to produce a noise, for
added security, is the Nightingale Floor laid in Nijo Castle,
Kyoto, Japan. Its sound is a very pleasant one, similar to the
cheeping of a nightingale. It is produced when the nails on
which the floorboards are freely suspended above the frame rub
against the floorboards when walked upon (Yokochi and
Yoshimoto, 2004).
Wood in concert halls—At least as much as we appreciate
a home with pleasant room acoustics, we hope for sound
optimization in a concert hall. The acoustics of rooms are
complicated by the fact that the sound produced by musicians
on stage reaches the audience not only directly, but also after
many reflections on the surfaces of the room and the objects in
it. Important quantities in room acoustics are the level of
reverberant sound and the reverberation time because they
determine the loudness, the clarity, and the liveliness of the
sound (Rossing and Fletcher, 2004). Optimal reverberation
times depend on the size and function of a room and range
from 0.5 s for small practice rooms of up to 135 m3 to 2.2 s in
large concerts halls of 20 000 m3 or larger, and also on cultural
preferences: Europeans, for example, prefer 10% longer
reverberation times than Americans (Knudsen, 1988).
Both the shape of the room and the acoustical properties of
the materials and objects in it determine the reverberation time.
Materials with a highly porous surface, such as carpets,
drapery, and upholstery absorb well at high frequencies, while
wooden panels act as reflectors and as resonators to absorb low
frequencies. The use of wood for flooring, seating, reflecting
panels, and wall panelling in concert halls in combination with
the aforementioned textiles is thus not only aesthetically
pleasing, but also necessary for the optimization of the sound
field, the reverberation time, and the brightness of a concert
hall for a wide range of frequencies.
CONCLUSIONS
Over the millennia, we have learned to use wood to its best
advantage in musical applications. The musical instruments we
know today are the result of the simultaneous optimization of
material and shape for the expectations of musicians and
audiences at a given time and in a given culture. Despite much
scientific effort to illuminate the properties of universally
accepted perfect instruments and their reproduction, we still
rely mainly on the art, knowledge, and experience passed on
from one generation of skilled instrument makers to the next.
They have the expertise to judge the quality of the material for
an instrument using eye, ear, and touch—and this often when it
is still hidden in the trunk of a tree or in wooden planks.
The aim of this contribution is to illustrate the unique range
and combination of mechanical and acoustical properties of
wood, which still make it the material of choice for musical
instruments and the lining of concert halls. Material property
charts that plot acoustic properties such as the speed of sound,
the characteristic impedance, the sound radiation coefficient,
and the loss coefficient against one another for various woods
FOR SOUND 1447
are used to illustrate and explain why spruce is the preferred
choice for soundboards, why tropical species are favored for
xylophone bars and woodwind instruments, why violinists still
prefer pernambuco over other species as a bow material, and
why hornbeam and birch are used in piano actions.
LITERATURE CITED
BARLOW, C. Y. 1997. Materials selection for musical instruments.
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 19: 69–78.
BEAVITT, A. 1996. Humidity cycling. Strad (November): 916–920.
BENADE, A. H. 1990. Fundamentals of musical acoustics, 2nd revised,
reprint ed. Dover, Mineola, New York, USA.
BORK, I. 1995. Practical tuning of xylophone bars and resonators. Applied
Acoustics 46: 103–127.
BUCUR, V. 2006. Acoustics of wood, 2nd ed. Springer Series in Wood
Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.
CONARD, N. J. 2004. Eine Mammutelfenbeinflöte aus dem Aurignacien des
Geißenklösterle. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34: 447–462.
CROSS, I. 2001. Music cognition, culture and evolution. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 930: 28–42.
DARWIN, C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John
Murray, London, England.
DINWOODIE, J. M. 2000. Timber, its nature and behaviour, 2nd ed. E & FN
Spon, London, UK.
FINSCHER, L. [ED.]. 1994. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart:
allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik (MGG). 2nd revised ed.
Bärenreiter, Kassel, Germany.
FLETCHER, N. H., AND T. D. ROSSING. 1991. The physics of musical
instruments, Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
HAINES, D. 1979. On musical instrument wood. Catgut Acoustical Society
Newsletter 1: 23–32.
HOLZ, D. 1996. Acoustically important properties of xylophone-bar
materials: can tropical woods be replaced by European species?
Acustica/Acta acustica 82: 878–884.
HOLZ, D. 2000. Weshalb Hammerstiele aus Birkenholz? Europiano 40:
35–36, 39–40.
HUNT, D. G., AND E. BALSAN. 1996. Why old fiddles sound sweeter. Nature
379: 681.
KNUDSEN, V. O. 1988. Raumakustik. In Winkler [ed.], Die Physik der
Musikinstrumente, 136–149. Spektrum der Wissenschaft, Heidelberg,
Germany.
MANNING, J. E. 1997. Statistical modeling of vibrating systems. In M. J.
Crocker [ed.], Encyclopaedia of acoustics, 757–768. Wiley, New
York, New York, USA.
MATSUNAGA, M., E. OBATAYA, K. MINATO, AND F. NAKATSUBO. 2000.
Working mechanism of adsorbed water on the vibrational properties
of wood impregnated with extractives of pernambuco (Guilandina
echinata Spreng.). Journal of Wood Science 46: 122–129.
MATSUNAGA, M., M. SUGIYAMA, K. MINATO, AND M. NORIMOTO. 1996.
Physical and mechanical properties required for violin bow materials.
Holzforschung 50: 511–517.
NEWLAND, D. E. 1989. Mechanical vibration analysis and computation,
Longman, Harlow, UK.
OBERHOFF, S. 2003. Bögen für Streichinstrumente: Das elastische und
anelastische Verhalten von Fernambukholz und alternativen Materi-
alien. Diploma thesis. Institut für Metallkunde, Universität Stuttgart,
Stuttgart, Germany.
PITTEROFF, R. 1995. Contact mechanics of the bowed string. Ph.D. thesis.
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
UK.
RICHTER, H. G. 1988. Holz als Rohstoff für den Musikinstrumentenbau.
Moeck Verlag, Celle, Germany.
ROSSING, T. D., AND N. H. FLETCHER. 2004. Principles of vibration and
sound, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
RUJINIRUN, C., P. PHINYOCHEEP, W. PRACHYABRUED, AND N. LAEMSAK. 2005.
Chemical treatment of wood for musical instruments. Part I.
Acoustically important properties of wood for the ranad (Thai
traditional xylophone). Wood Science and Technology 39: 77–85.
1448 A MERICAN J OURNAL
SADIE, S., AND J. TYRELL [EDS.]. 2001. The new Grove dictionary of music
and musicians, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, New
York, USA.
SEEBERGER, F. 2003. Klangwelten der Altsteinzeit [music CD]. Urge-
schichtliches Museum Blaubeuren, Blaubeuren, Germany.
SEGERMAN, E. 1996. Wood structure and what happened in the Hunt &
Balsan experiment. Fellowship of Makers and Researchers of
Historical Instruments Quaterly 84, Communication 1471: 53–55.
SEGERMAN, E. 2001. Some aspects of wood structure and function. Journal
of the Catgut Acoustical Society 4: 5–9.
SELL, J. 1989. Eigenschaften und Kenngrössen von Holzarten. LIGNUM,
Schweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für das Holz, Zürich, Switzer-
land.
SKUDRZYK, E. 1980. The mean-value method of predicting the dynamic
response of complex vibrators. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 67: 1105–1135.
VON HORNBOSTEL, E. M., AND C. SACHS. 1914. Systematik der Musikin-
strumente. Ein Versuch. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 46: 553–590.
WAGENFÜHR, R., AND C. SCHREIBER. 1989. Holzatlas, 3rd ed. VEB Fach-
buchverlag, Leipzig, Germany.
WEGST, U. G. K. 1996. The mechanical performance of natural materials.
Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
View publication stats
OF B OTANY [Vol. 93
WEGST, U. G. K. 2004. Natural Materials Selector, created using the CES
Constructor Software, Granta Design, Cambridge, UK.
WEGST, U. G. K., AND M. F. ASHBY. 1996. Alternative woods for violin
bows. Newsletter of the British Violin Making Association 5: 7–14.
WOOD HANDBOOK. 1999. Wood handbook: wood as an engineering
material. General Technical Report 113. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
WOODHOUSE, J. 1993a. On the playability of violins. Part 1. Reflection
functions. Acoustica 78: 125–136.
WOODHOUSE, J. 1993b. On the playability of violins. Part 2. Minimum bow
force and transients. Acoustica 78: 137–153.
YANO, H., Y. FURUTA, AND H. NAKAGAWA. 1997. Materials for guitar back
plates made from sustainable forest resources. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 101: 1112–1119.
YOKOCHI, K., AND A. YOSHIMOTO. 2004. Nijo Castle. Website http://www.
kyopro.kufs.ac.jp/dp/dp01.nsf/ecfa8fdd6a53a7fc4925700e00303ed8/
[Accessed 28 February 2006].
ZIERL, B. 2005. Obtaining the perfect violin sound: with fungi. Website
http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/981/40307/—/l¼2 [Ac-
cessed 28 February 2006].